(Christians, Muslims): Why your religion?

[Enoch07]

I believe Judaism and Islam will not get a person into the Kingdom of God.

Luke 23 38-43 kjv

38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

That's up to God, not us.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You have no 'revelation' from God

And neither do you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That makes you a hypocrite.

As I also follow the Bible and Quran, in fact all God given scripture, I would offer as a Baha'i, that we wear as a badge of honour such accusations as being a hypocrite.

Regards Tony

 

[Scheherazade]

Jesus appointed a successor as did Muhammad (Ali). The legitimacy of a successor based on the will of God is crucial to a faith being freed from corruption. Who denies the entire Catholic tradition? The Baha’is clearly don’t but we don’t accept Catholicism in its entirety as being true any more than we do Shi’a or Sunni Islam. Religion changes with time and man made traditions become inextricably interwoven with what God has Revealed.

That's my very point! You want to have your cake and eat it too. The Bible states that Jesus established a visible church upon Peter and promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), but you say in effect that this promise was not fulfilled, that the appointment of a successor did not at all protect the faith from corruption, and that it was therefore necessary for God to send another prophet to found a new religion. It is the same with Islam. That is what the Qur'an says happened throughout history, but that is why it is said that God would protect the Qur'an from being changed so that it would not happen again. The fact that Jesus appointed a successor is not an incidental detail from the point of view of Christianity, and neither is that Muhammad is said to be the final Prophet from the point of view of Islam, yet you treat these things as if they are. Your religious teachings either ignore central details of previous religions which are in conflict with them, or give them anachronistic metaphorical interpretations to the point where they lose all their real meaning. That's what happens when you try to meld together the Qur'an and the Bible; it doesn't work. So you have to take either one or the other.

How can Islam as it stands today represent the final and uncorrupted Revelation from God? Its so divided and out of step with modernity.

Religion shouldn't change to be compatible with modernity. Modernity should change to be compatible with religion. Where exactly in either the Bible or the Qur'an do you encounter the idea that something is only as true and as useful as it is modern?

I still think you are a Muslim in disguise.

You think I am secretly a Muslim and @Wasp thinks I am "on a straight path to Christianity." I wonder which one it is...

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's my very point! You want to have your cake and eat it too. The Bible states that Jesus established a visible church upon Peter and promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), but you say in effect that this promise was not fulfilled, that the appointment of a successor did not at all protect the faith from corruption, and that it was therefore necessary for God to send another prophet to found a new religion. It is the same with Islam.

The question is what does Matthew 16:18 mean in the light of history?

It can’t possibly mean the church would be free from schism for all eternity. It can’t mean that subsequent Popes after Peter would be pure and sanctified souls as there have been some pretty awful Popes.

The Bad Popes - Wikipedia

Nor can it mean that the church would be freed from tyranny and injustice.

What it most likely means is that despite all these satanic forces the church would endure which it clearly has after nearly two thousand years.

Was it necessary for God to send another Prophet after Jesus? God has always sent Prophets and it is difficult to argue that either Islam or Christianity are so unmistakably unified, freed from corruption and most importantly able to meet the needs of humanity for today and beyond that God would cease to guide humanity as He has done in the past.

That is what the Qur'an says happened throughout history, but that is why it is said that God would protect the Qur'an from being changed so that it would not happen again. The fact that Jesus appointed a successor is not an incidental detail from the point of view of Christianity, and neither is that Muhammad is said to be the final Prophet from the point of view of Islam, yet you treat these things as if they are. Your religious teachings either ignore central details of previous religions which are in conflict with them, or give them anachronistic metaphorical interpretations to the point where they lose all their real meaning. That's what happens when you try to meld together the Qur'an and the Bible; it doesn't work. So you have to take either one or the other.

That is main gist of the argument Jews make against the Christians,

Religion shouldn't change to be compatible with modernity. Modernity should change to be compatible with religion. Where exactly in either the Bible or the Qur'an do you encounter the idea that something is only as true and as useful as it is modern?

So the Catholic Church were right to imprison Galileo and consider his heliocentric worldview a heresy? Perhaps democracy should have been banned, slavery perpetuated and the rights of women suppressed? If religion can’t adapt and change to the needs of the age it becomes irrelevant and marginalised.

 

[Unguru]

And neither do you.

Correct but I'm not talking about Sikhi. In Sikhi, the Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is nothing like the Bible or the Qur'an. We don't believe in prophets either but we affirm that God is Unity, equally as strongly as Muslims do.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

the Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is nothing like the Bible or the Qur'an.

It is exactly like them, it is a religious scripture written by people. It is not special. And from what I heard most English scholars of religion don't believe that it merits a full translation because it is so repetitive and meandering. it is just another book among other books. At least my book as all the cool sex and violence like a Game of Thrones on steroids.

 

[Scheherazade]

The question is what does Matthew 16:18 mean in the light of history?

It can’t possibly mean the church would be free from schism for all eternity. It can’t mean that subsequent Popes after Peter would be pure and sanctified souls as there have been some pretty awful Popes.

The Bad Popes - Wikipedia

Nor can it mean that the church would be freed from tyranny and injustice.

And no one says that's what it means. It doesn't even mean Peter himself would be a "pure and sanctified soul." He wasn't exactly the perfect disciple; rather, was one of the most rash and faltering among them. He did deny Jesus three times, after all (Matt. 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-62 John 18:15-17, 25-27). The text doesn't say that it was because of his extraordinary righteousness that he was chosen but because he realized that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God (Matthew 16:15-17). No one (not even Catholics) denies that there have been bad popes throughout history. That is not what Matthew 16:18 means. Read it alongside Matthew 23:1-12. Jesus critiques the scribes and the pharisees all over the New Testament and calls them sinful, hypocritical, etc., but nevertheless, he tells the people to listen to them when they teach the Law, since they "sit in Moses' seat" (Matthew 23:2). Let me give you an analogy that you should understand well. You Baha'is believe that your Universal House of Justice is infallible, but are they infallible in their personal lives? Are they entirely above mistakes and wrongdoing? Of course not. They are only infallible when they all get together and speak on matters of doctrine. It is the same with the pope according to the teachings of Catholicism as I understand it. He is only infallible under very specific circumstances.

So the Catholic Church were right to imprison Galileo and consider his heliocentric worldview a heresy?

This is a long-refuted line that only atheists use. Galileo was not imprisoned because of his scientific ideas. The Catholic Church has historically been an eager patron of the arts and sciences. He was imprisoned because he insulted the pope. Was that unjust? Obviously, but such things were par for the course in that era in practically every society.

Perhaps democracy should have been banned, slavery perpetuated and the rights of women suppressed? If religion can’t adapt and change to the needs of the age it becomes irrelevant and marginalised.

I'm not saying religion should stay in the past, as you seem to think I am. As Gustav Mahler said, "Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire."

 

[SA Huguenot]

You’re entitled to your opinion but if you know the Quran then you wouldn’t be making such a statement.

I’m not a Muslim but a Baha’i and I accept both the Bible and Quran comfortably and there is no contradictions between them.

Only the interpretations of men differ but the Word of God in both Holy Books compliment each other.

Cool, then you can perhaps answer my question on surra 4: 157.
Did the witnesses to the crucifixion see Jesus die on the cross?
Look I am not even using the Bible, but only the Quarn, and here it destroys itself.
So if you say you can fit the Bible and Quran in nicely with each other, you definately never read the Quran, and only speak of sonething you thing is possible.

Now, for 1460 years people tried to reconcile the Bible and Quran with each other, and if you can do it, I would like to know how.
But start on 4: 157.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What Jesus received was revelation. What the people wrote was not. The writing may have contained some revelation with it. That's it. To begin with, the words of Jesus would be the revelation, if it wasn't for the incessant manipulating of the scripture.

Says who?
pal you forget.
The Quran tells Muhammad to co to the Christians to consult the Bible.
It says Christians should stand steadfast to the Bible they had in the time of Muhammad.
This is exactly what we have today!
Show me one verse in the Quran that tells me the Gospels the Christians had was not the Gospel they received from the apostles!
Say Who?
Onlu Muslims.
Then again!
You are accusing Allah that he can not protect his revelations@!
The Quran say you will burn in hell for those words pal.
No, Muhammad made one huge booboo when he uttered these revelations about the Bible.
It actually destroys Islam from its roots upward.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What Jesus received was revelation. What the people wrote was not. The writing may have contained some revelation with it. That's it. To begin with, the words of Jesus would be the revelation, if it wasn't for the incessant manipulating of the scripture.
Again, revelation, not the Bible.
Even though the words were spoken to the prophet, they were directed to the people among the Arabs who doubted and who had no knowledge of the old scriptures.

I rest my case your Honor.
here we have an admittance from a Muslim telling us that Muslims should go to the Christians if they doubt the Quran.

 

[Unguru]

Cool, then you can perhaps answer my question on surra 4: 157./QUOTE]

What's bad about that verse? aside from that you don't like your sacred cow not being god-incarnate

 

[Unguru]

The Quran tells Muhammad to co to the Christians to consult the Bible.

All you do is lie lie lie here, lie through your teeth and shout.

The Bible debunks itself by the way.

 

[Unguru]

Show me one verse in the Quran that tells me the Gospels the Christians had was not the Gospel they received from the apostles!

Show us a single quote where in the Qur'an it refers to four biographies of specifically chosen by the early Christian church. Show us specifically where it refers to these four biographies in the Qur'an, it'll be enlightening to see. You won't be able to though because you are just strawmanning something that the Qur'an and Islam don't claim, yet pretending that this strawman proves your position.

And to repeat for the third time now:

Which Gospel?

God's
Thomas'
Marks'
Luke's
John's
Peter's
Judas'
Barnabas'
Marcion's
James'
Mary's
The Ebionites'
The Hebrews'
The Nazarenes'
Apelles'
Nicodemus'
Bartholomew's
Phillips'

????

Again, an answer would be appreciated.

And again, do you mean Oral Torah (Talmud) when you say "Torah"?

 

[Dawnofhope]

And no one says that's what it means. It doesn't even mean Peter himself would be a "pure and sanctified soul." He wasn't exactly the perfect disciple; rather, was one of the most rash and faltering among them. He did deny Jesus three times, after all (Matt. 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-62 John 18:15-17, 25-27). The text doesn't say that it was because of his extraordinary righteousness that he was chosen but because he realized that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God (Matthew 16:15-17). No one (not even Catholics) denies that there have been bad popes throughout history. That is not what Matthew 16:18 means. Read it alongside Matthew 23:1-12. Jesus critiques the scribes and the pharisees all over the New Testament and calls them sinful, hypocritical, etc., but nevertheless, he tells the people to listen to them when they teach the Law, since they "sit in Moses' seat" (Matthew 23:2). Let me give you an analogy that you should understand well. You Baha'is believe that your Universal House of Justice is infallible, but are they infallible in their personal lives? Are they entirely above mistakes and wrongdoing? Of course not. They are only infallible when they all get together and speak on matters of doctrine. It is the same with the pope according to the teachings of Catholicism as I understand it. He is only infallible under very specific circumstances.

Jesus who was infallible chose Peter. Other than the NT books we don’t have much to assess Peter’s character. We do know he was a martyr for the cause of Christ and His leadership amongst the Apostles upheld. So in Christ’s appointment of Peter there was Divine Wisdom and the basis for the institution of the Papacy which as you reasonably assert can be a channel for Divine Guidance under the right conditions. That to me fits nicely when Shoghi Effendi asserts the primacy of Peter.

Christendom was experiencing significant disunity resulting from the teachings of Arius when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity early in the 4th century. This found resolution through the Nicene Creed though doctrinal error was now set in motion. When Muhammad’s Prophetic Career began in 610 AD problems with the Divinity of Christ, His Sonship and the Trinity were outlined. Regardless the Christian Church continued and contributed greatly to the West achieving new heights of civilisation through the Renaissance and beyond. This was ironic in that the Islamic Golden Age through influences via Spain and Turkey was arguably the most important factor igniting this new era of knowledge in the West.

As the West flourished, Islam (that had peaked through 800 to about 1400) went into a slow decline. A key factor for the Islamic Golden Age was the discovery of paper from the Chinese. The Gutenberg press was the next milestone and this set the West apart. Islam at that stage had become dominated by conservative clergy who shunned the use of such a Western invention. It wouldn’t be for another three hundred years that the first Gutenberg press was permitted within the Ottoman Empire.

This is a long-refuted line that only atheists use. Galileo was not imprisoned because of his scientific ideas. The Catholic Church has historically been an eager patron of the arts and sciences. He was imprisoned because he insulted the pope. Was that unjust? Obviously, but such things were par for the course in that era in practically every society.

I agree the Catholic Church was supportive of the arts and sciences but not to the extent it contravened church doctrine. The heliocentric model was certainly contrary to church teaching and considered heretical.

Roman Inquisition - Wikipedia

The Catholic narrative for me highlights how important the geocentric model of the universe was at that time. It would have been similarly important to a Christian worldview as the role Peter played for the Catholics and the Khatam an-Nabiyyin to the Muslims.

The Galileo Controversy

I'm not saying religion should stay in the past, as you seem to think I am. As Gustav Mahler said, "Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire."

I like the quote. However both Islam and Christianity have undeniably resisted progress with science and human rights in the last two hundred years. Of the two religions you consider worthy of your investigation, Christianity has proved the most progressive and adaptable. However its influence in countries such as mine (New Zealand) has waned.

 

[Wasp]

Says who?

Allah in the Qur'an.

pal you forget.
The Quran tells Muhammad to co to the Christians to consult the Bible.

The Qur'an doesn't mention the Bible it only mentions the gospel. And besides for my earlier point regarding the interpretation of this verse, it doesn't refer to the Christians alone but the Jews too.

It says Christians should stand steadfast to the Bible they had in the time of Muhammad.

It says no such thing.

This is exactly what we have today!
Show me one verse in the Quran that tells me the Gospels the Christians had was not the Gospel they received from the apostles!

It's in the word Gospel, the revelation given to Jesus - that alone.

 

[Wasp]

I rest my case your Honor.
here we have an admittance from a Muslim telling us that Muslims should go to the Christians if they doubt the Quran.

Indeed they can go. If the Jews and the Christians know their religion they can recognize Islam as well.

Despite a common misconception Muslims are encouraged to get to know Christianity, Judaism and their scripture.

But it helps little with their faith because of the lack of truth in the bible.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The Qur'an doesn't mention the Bible it only mentions the gospel. And besides for my earlier point regarding the interpretation of this verse, it doesn't refer to the Christians alone but the Jews too.

Wrong again!
The Quran does not refer to the Gospel in 10:94 at all.
It says "L Kitaab" the Book! SINGULAR!
well, in 630 AD the christians had ONE BOOK they called the Book containing the scriptures.
2 surviving Bibles from 350 to 380 are available today predating Muhammad by 250 years! (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)
Therefore, If Allah were to say, Muhammad, go and ask the Christians about the Gospel, it would have saud "Injill", but it said, about their book!
Christians have one Book, called the Bible which includes 66 scriptures, also called books.
So, If Muhammad would have used the plural Kitabiun, it would not refer to the Gospels either, but to the Bible books.
Fortunately, the Islam god refered to the Christian Book they had which he revealed.
What you are doing is to twist your own meaning in the event.

It's in the word Gospel, the revelation given to Jesus - that alone.

And here we have it!
The Jesus you and Muhammad believes in is not the Jesus of the Gospels.
It is a distorted view if Jesus, which they call Jesus but is some one else by the name ISSA.
Jesus never received any revelation, ever.
He was revelation!
He is the Word.

Your Issa was never crucified, nor did he rose from the dead.
Your Issa was created by an so called angeel "Gibriel" who blew into the private parts of some woman called Miryam, who was supposedly the sister of Moses!

Jesus was created in the womb of Mary when the Holy Ghost overshaddowed Mary.
Jesus was the Word of YHWH before He became a man, it was him who created everything.
Jesus revealed the Gospel to mankind, He did not receive a revelation such as Issa, because jesus was God in the flesh, and He gave us the Gospel!
Gospel actually means, Good news. It is not a book as you claim. it was written up in 4 books to explain the Gospel.
jesus is the Gospel.
It means, God came to His creation to save us from eternal death, and God will make us alive in heaven with Him.
This is the Good news.
The Gospel is, Follow Jesus and you will attain eternal life with God!

Muhammad was deceived by Satan who pretended to be an angel.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Indeed they can go. If the Jews and the Christians know their religion they can recognize Islam as well.

Despite a common misconception Muslims are encouraged to get to know Christianity, Judaism and their scripture.

But it helps little with their faith because of the lack of truth in the bible.

Explain: "lack of Truth in the Bible" to me please.
I find only the Truth in the Bible, and a lack of atheism, hatred, and terror.
I will discuss your opinion anytime point by point, so tell me where is a lack of Truth in the Bible.
lets get going!

 

[Unguru]

Christians have one Book, called the Bible which includes 66 scriptures, also called books.

66 man-written texts, mostly biographies, some poems and some letters. The Bible is not scripture. To argue the Bible against the Qur'an is ludicrous because the Bible is not scripture, period.

The Jesus you and Muhammad believes in is not the Jesus of the Gospels.

Whether someone is a Muslim or not is irrelevant, the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of the New Testament.
Muhammad only believed what he was revealed by God.
Muhammad received directly from God, you have only biographies and fantasy myths called the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" based of adaptions of some historical prophets way way way after they actually existed.
Again, the Qur'an crushes the Bible. The Bible has no credibility.

Your Issa was created by an so called angeel "Gibriel" who blew into the private parts of some woman called Miryam, who was supposedly the sister of Moses!

The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

The Gospel is, Follow Jesus and you will attain eternal life with God!

It's quicker to just follow God without any idols.

Muhammad was deceived by Satan who pretended to be an angel.

The Christian Jesus was a magician and is the equivalent of Lucifer (morning star). Jesus and Satan are the same according to the Bible.

Your claim makes no sense though, especially in comparison to the Bible. You have no scripture, you only have biographies. It's not reasonable to assume that the Bible is scripture and is even less reasonable for you to react the way you have and continue to do, when you claim to believe in the concept of revelation.